level_save

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool saves the level and optionally all dirty assets, which implies a write/mutation operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting files, whether a level must be loaded, or any permission requirements. The description is not misleading, but it could be more transparent about the operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that includes all essential information without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and clear about the optional behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequately complete. It states the action, the resource, and the optional parameter's effect. It does not explain the return format or error behavior, but for a save operation this is often implicit and acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single boolean parameter 'save_all' with a description. The tool description's phrase 'optionally all dirty assets' mirrors what the schema says ('Also save all modified assets'), adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Save the current level and optionally all dirty assets.' The verb 'save' with the specific resource 'current level' makes the purpose unambiguous, and the optional dirty assets scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_save_many which focus on assets specifically.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys clear usage context: use this tool when you need to save the current level, optionally including modified assets. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like asset_save_many, but the wording implies the distinction. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context is straightforward.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.